Monday night’s Elon Musk interview of former President Trump was exactly the mess many of us imagined it would be. Musk lobbed softballs so laconic and plump that even the weakened, loose-dentured, Sylvester the Cat version of Donald Trump we heard that night could hit them.
If there has ever been a real-time, uninvited interview for a role in a presidential administration, this was it. The billionaire investor let Trump ramble for what seemed like days, then pivoted to variations of “well, we could show the world a better future than past — I’d love to help.”
Please, no.
Thus, today seems as good a time as any for a reality check on who Elon Musk is and why any role for him in a presidential administration would be bad for us — and probably even worse for democracy.
If you’re an Elon Musk fan, you probably see him as a brilliant entrepreneur. But brilliance in business does not automatically translate to effective or ethical governance. In fact, Musk’s tendencies — his disregard for regulations, his autocratic management style and his fixation on personal freedom at the expense of collective welfare — make him almost uniquely unsuited for any role that requires a commitment to democratic principles.
One of the cornerstones of democracy is the rule of law, including the regulations that govern our society. Musk, however, has made it clear that he views regulations as little more than obstacles to be circumvented. Whether it’s dismissing safety concerns with Tesla’s Autopilot, launching rockets without necessary environmental reviews, or challenging labor laws by discouraging unionization efforts, Musk’s track record shows a blatant disregard for rules that don’t align with his vision.
In a government role, this attitude could have pretty broad consequences.
Regulations exist for a reason — they protect public health, ensure fair competition and prevent abuses of power. A government led or heavily influenced by someone like Musk, who sees regulations as impediments rather than safeguards, would likely strip away critical protections in the name of innovation or efficiency, with little regard for the long-term impacts on the average citizen.
Musk is also well-known for his hands-on, often authoritarian management style. He has been described as a micromanager who demands absolute loyalty and often lashes out at those who disagree with him. This might work in a company where he has the final say, but in a democratic government, it’s a recipe for disaster.
Democracy relies on the balance of power, the ability to debate and dissent, and the necessity of compromise. Musk’s history suggests that he has little patience for any of these democratic processes. His tendency to centralize decision-making and his intolerance for opposition could lead to a government that is more dictatorial than democratic, where decisions are made by a few powerful individuals rather than through the will of the people.
Musk often talks about freedom — freedom to innovate, freedom from government oversight, freedom to say whatever he wants on his social media platform. But this version of freedom is heavily skewed in favor of those who already have power and wealth, while ignoring the need for collective responsibility.
In a democracy, freedom is balanced by the need for equity, justice and the common good. Musk’s version of freedom often disregards this balance, prioritizing the interests of the few over the needs of the many. If Musk were to have a hand in shaping government policy, we could see a shift toward a society where the rich and powerful are even further insulated from accountability while the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves.
Last but certainly not least, there’s the cult of personality that surrounds Musk — a dangerous phenomenon in any democratic society. Musk’s fan base is fiercely loyal, often defending his actions regardless of their merit. This kind of blind allegiance is dangerous in a democracy, where leaders should be held accountable to the people, not worshiped as infallible figures.
If Musk were to assume a significant role in government, this cult of personality could erode the very foundations of democracy. Instead of a government by the people, for the people, we could find ourselves with a government driven by the whims and ambitions of a single individual, with little regard for the broader public good.
So as the passing hours from Monday night’s debacle hopefully erase some of those memories, we actually should reflect upon the reality that is Elon Musk. He may be a once-in-a-century type of innovator, risk-taker and visionary, but while these qualities are valuable in the private sector, they could be catastrophic in a decision-maker in a presidential administration.
Aron Solomon is the chief strategy officer for Amplify. He has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania.